i
John Reitz van Breda
Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Public &
Development Management in the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences
at Stellenbosch University
Supervisor: Prof Mark Swilling
Co-supervisor: Prof Christian Erik Pohl
ii
DECLARATION
By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work
contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to
the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by
Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights; and that I have not
previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification.
Date: December 2019 ………
Copyright © 2019 Stellenbosch University
iii
ABSTRACT
The publication in 2002, by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen, of the ushering in of the Anthropocene, with the inception of the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North-America in the 18th – 19th centuries, has had some far-reaching ontological, epistemological, ethical and methodological implications for our intellectual/academic endeavours. This is the case, because never before in human history on earth were we required to face the global consequences of our own actions since the dawn of this new human-induced geological epoch.
Starting at the ontological level, today we are facing the planetary consequences of non-linear human-nature causal relations – i.e. witnessing the once literally unimaginable and universally accepted fact of the immutability of all natural laws and processes. In view of the overwhelming empirical evidence of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and global warming such strongly held views / theories of the ‘objectivity’ of nature is no longer necessarily valid. On the contrary, today it has become quite plausible to accept that human actions are responsible for interfering with and changing some of the earth’s four billion year old / evolved processes – such as, for example, the earth’s temperature self-regulating mechanisms. Very importantly, though, is that this interference and change of the latter has occurred to such an extent that we can no longer speak of the latter as purely ‘natural’ occurring processes.
At the epistemological level, this truly unprecedented change in causal human-nature relations, means that we are no longer challenged with the oft-repeated philosophical questions of what is knowledge and how it is produced only. Equally, if not more, important is the question for what are we producing knowledge? In the Anthropocene, it no longer suffices to produce knowledge that is concerned with the understanding (Verstehen) and explaining (Erklärung) of the anthropogenic causes of the Anthropocene only; we are also, at the same time, challenged to produce knowledge that can contribute to changing (Verändern) our thinking and actions responsible for (causing) the Anthropocene in the first place – i.e. producing practical knowledge capable of contributing to social change (Verändern) – in short, co-producing transformation knowledge.
However, co-producing transformation knowledge in the Anthropocene is not an end in itself. Transformation knowledge is inextricably linked to ethics / ethical questions with an explicit interest in figuring out how we should act appropriately and fairly / justly in the context of the Anthropocene today. This, in turn, means facing a triple-challenge of co-producing theoretical,
iv
practical and normative knowledge which addresses the complex problem situations facing us in the Anthropocene today. No action is arguably the worst form of action to take in the Anthropocene, especially when considering that that the latter is the result of some deep-rooted structural socio-economic inequalities between the rich and the poor in the world. The quest for taking appropriate action is, therefore, fundamentally entangled with the question of figuring out how to act in a fair / just manner that can somehow contribute to undoing some of the historical injustices responsible for the Anthropocene – rather than reproducing the latter.
Dealing with these non-separable ontological-epistemological-ethical considerations and questions in the context of the Anthropocene have, indeed, far-reaching methodological implications – warranting some trans-disciplinary responses capable of doing science with society – rather than just on, about or for society – which are, normally, done from much more restricted perspective of only dealing with the study of certain (disciplinary) methods. On the contrary, in the context of the Anthropocene what is required today are trans-disciplinary approaches capable of going beyond (the ‘trans’ in trans-disciplinarity) such reductionist (methods-only) approaches, by engaging with complex societal challenges – which, in the process of doing so, are capable of venturing and crossing into the philosophical provinces of ontology, epistemology, logics, ethics etc. – shaping and being shaped by the latter.
However, there is an inherent risk in presenting such trans-disciplinary approaches as some or other methodological panacea – i.e. something which is relevant for ALL the different kinds of problem situations we are encountering in the Anthropocene today. Falling into this trap should be avoided at all costs, because not ALL problem situations faced in the Anthropocene today are necessarily complex problem situations. Indeed, some are straightforward / simple, others complicated and still others chaotic – for which there are certainly more appropriate methodological responses such as mono-, multi- and inter-disciplinarity, for example. In other words, it is much better to imagine trans-disciplinarity as one amongst a few context- or domain-relevant methodological responses; with the understanding that trans-disciplinarity is much more specifically focussed on and interested in tackling complex societal challenges that are considered too complex for tackling strictly from within single disciplinary boundaries only, but rather warrant methodological approaches capable of working both across, between and beyond disciplinary boundaries – including engaging with social actors’ non-academic knowledge systems.
The implications of working with such different domain-relevant methodologies, in turn, implies being or becoming methodologically agile – i.e. the ability to switch between and within the said different domain-relevant methodologies as and when required by any changes occurring
v
in the problem situations (contexts) at hand. This should not, however, be confused with the much more onerous Kuhnian notion of ‘paradigm switching’, which is simply too arduous an undertaking for the nimbleness required when facing ever-changing problem situations in the Anthropocene today.
In light of the above, the fundamental focus of this study is on developing such an agile transdisciplinary methodology – with an explicit interest in contributing to just and sustainable social change in/to the complex societal challenges facing us in the Anthropocene today in a manner that is mindful of not falling into the said trap of presenting itself as a panacea for ALL the different kinds of problems situations facing us in the Anthropocene today. In short, such an agile transdisciplinary methodology will be referred to throughout this study as an emergent, transformative transdisciplinary research (ETTDR) approach.
iii
OPSOMMING
Die publikasie in 2002, deur die Nobel Laureaat Paul Crutzen, van die aanvang van die Antroposeen, sedert die Industriële Revoulusie in Europa en Noord-Amerika in die 18de – 19de eeu, het verreikende ontologiese, epistomologiese, etiese en metodologiese implikasies vir ons intellektuele/akademiese strewe meegebring. Dit is die geval, omdat nog nooit voorheen in die geskiedenis van die mens op die aarde is van ons verwag om sedert die aanbreek van hierdie nuwe mensgeïnduseerde geologiese tydvak, die globale gevolge van ons eie optrede/aksies die hoof te bied nie.
Beginnende by die ontologiese vlak, wat ons vandag in die gesig staar is die planetêre gevolge van nie-lineêre mens en natuur oorsaaklike verhoudings – dit is die waarneming van ‘n fundamentele klem verskuiwing in die eens letterlik ondenkbare en universeel-aanvaarde feit van die onveranderlikheid van alle natuurwette en –prosesse. In die lig van die oorweldigende empiriese bewyse en antropogeniese oorsake van klimaatsverandering en aardverwarming is hierdie sterk opvattings en teorieë nie meer noodwendig geldig nie. Inteendeel, vandag is dit heel wetenskaplik aanvaarbaar om te erken dat menslike optrede verantwoordelik is vir die inmenging met en verandering van die aarde se vier biljoen jaar oue geleidelik ontstaande en selfregulerende temperatuurmeganismes, in so ’n mate dat ons nie meer na laasvermelde kan verwys as ’n suiwer ‘natuurlike’ proses nie.
Op die epistomologiese vlak, beteken hierdie ongekende verandering in die mens en natuur kausale verhoudings dat ons nie meer alleenlik te staan kom voor die tradisionele filosofiese vrae oor wat kennis is en hoe dit voortgebring word nie. Ewe, indien nie meer, belangrik is die vraag: waarvoor bring ons kennis voort? Dit is nie langer voldoende om slegs kennis voort te bring wat alleenlik bydra tot ons verstaan (Verstehen) en verduideliking (Erklärung) van die antropogeniese (mensgeïnduseerde) oorsake van die Antroposeen. In die konteks van laasvermelde word daar ook, terselfdertyd, verwag dat ons kennis voortbring wat kan bydra tot die verandering (Verändern) van ons denkwyses en optredes wat in die eerste plek verantwoordelik is vir die oorsake van die Antroposeen – m.a.w die produsering van praktiese kennis wat tot sosiale verandering kan bydra. – kortliks: die mede-produksie van transformasie-kennis.
In die Antroposeen is die mede-produksie van transformasie-kennis egter nie ‘n doel opsigself nie, aangesien dit onlosmaaklik met etiek / etiese vrae verbind is met ‘n eksplisiete interesse in die vraag oor hoe ons toepaslik en regverdig / billik vandag in die konteks van die
iv
Antroposeen moet optree? Dit, op sy beurt, beteken dat ons voor ‘n drieledige uitdaging vandag te staan kom oor hoe om teoretiese, praktiese en normatiewe kennis voort te bring wat komplekse probleemsituasies in die Antroposeen aanspreek. Geen optrede is waarskynlik die ergste vorm van aksie om in die Antroposeen te neem, veral met dié wete voor oë dat laasvermelde die gevolg is van sommige diepgewortelde strukturele sosio-ekonomiese ongelykhede tussen die wêreld se rykes en armes. Die soeke na die neem van gepaste aksie is daarom onlosmaaklik verstrengel met die vraag oor hoe om op ’n regverdige/billike wyse op te tree op só ‘n wyse dat dit kan bydra tot die ontknoping van sommige van die historiese onregverdighede wat tot die ontstaan van die Antroposeen gelei het – eerder as om laasvermelde te reproduseer.
Die hantering van sulke onlosmaaklike ontologies-epistemologies-etiese oorweginge en vrae het verreikende metodologiese implikasies vir die manier waarop ons navorsing doen in die Antroposeen. Hiervoor is daar sekere trans-dissiplinêre benaderings benodig word, wat daartoe instaat is om wetenskap doelgerig saam met die gemeenskap te bedryf – eerder as om net kennis oor of vir die gemeenskap te lewer. Sulke pogings gaan gewoonlik gepaard met baie beperkte benaderings wat die konsep van metodologie gewoon wil reduseer tot die studie van sekere dissiplinêre metodes. Wat vandag, in die konteks van Antroposeen, benodig word is trans-dissiplinêre benaderings wat verder kan gaan (i.e. ‘trans’ in trans-dissiplinêr) as sulke reduktionistiese, instrumentele benaderings. M.a.w navorsingsmetodologieë wat daartoe instaat is om op so ‘n wyse met komplekse samelewingsprobleme om te gaan dat dit die intense wisselwerking tussen metodologie en die filosofiese sfere van ontologie, epistemologie, etiek etc. aanspreek.
Daar is egter ‘n inherente risiko daaraan verbonde om sodanige trans-dissiplinêre benaderings aan te bied as een of ander tipe metodologiese wondermiddel wat relevant en bevoeg is om letterlik AL die verskillende probleemsituasies wat ons vandag in die Antroposeen in die gesig staar, aan te spreek. Hierdie lokval moet ten alle koste verymy word, aangesien ALLE probleemsituasies wat ons vandag in the Antroposeen ervaar nie noodwendig komplekse problemsituasies is nie. Sommige is voorwaar heel duidelik/eenvoudig, ander is ingewikkeld en nog ander is chaoties van aard – waarvoor daar duidelik meer gepaste metodologiese benaderings is, soos byvoorbeeld: mono-, multi- en inter-dissiplinêre benaderings. Met ander woorde, dit is baie beter om die trans-dissiplinêre benadering te sien as een van enkele konteks- of domein-relevante metodologiese benaderings. Met dit in gedagte, is die fokus van transdissiplinêre navorsing baie meer spesifiek gerig op die hantering van komplekse samelewingsuitdagings – i.e. probleemsituasies wat as te ingewikkeld beskou word om streng net vanuit enkel-dissiplinêre
v
grense aan te pak, eerder benader moet word deur oor, tussen en buite dissiplinêre grense heen te beweeg – insluitende die betrokkenheid van nie-akademiese kennisstesels.
Die implikasies om met sodanige verskillende domein-relevante metodologieë om te gaan, impliseer weer op sy beurt ’n breë ingestelheid van metodologiese behendigheid – i.e. die vermoë om oor te skakel tussen die vermelde domein-relevante metodologieë – waar en wanneer sulke skuiwe nodig geag word in die lig van enige veranderinge wat in die probleemsituasies na vore kom. Sodanige oorskakeling tussen verskillende domein-relevante metodologieë moet egter nie verwar word met die Kuhnian-begrip van ‘paradigma skakeling’ nie, omdat laasvermelde eenvoudig te gewigtig is vir die beweeglikheid wat vereis word deur die gedurig-veranderende probleemsituasies (kontekste) in die Antroposeen.
In die lig hiervan is die basiese fokus van hierdie studie gerig op die ontwikkeling van so ’n beweeglike transdissiplinêre metodologie – ’n benadering met ‘n eksplisiete interesse om regverdige en volhoubare maatskaplike verandering aan te bring in genoemde komplekse probleemsituasies wat ons vandag in die konteks van die Antroposeen in die gesig staar. In kort, daar sal regdeur hierdie studie na so ’n behendige transdissiplinêre metodologie as ‘n ontluikende, transformatiewe transdissiplinêre navorsingsbenadering (ETTDR) verwys word.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ... ii ABSTRACT ... iii OPSOMMING ... iii LIST OF FIGURES ... ix ACRONYMS ... xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... xiiChapter 1: Objectives and Modus Operandi of the Study ... 1
Chapter 2: Rationale for ETTDR – Why, What and for What? ... 9
2.1 Introduction ... 9
2.2 What is ETTDR? ... 9
2.3 Why ETTDR? ... 12
2.4 ETTDR for WHAT? ... 13
Chapter 3: Enkanini – A Case Study in ETTDR ... 16
3.1 Introduction ... 16
3.2 Overview.1: “Enkanini” means “taken by force” ... 18
3.3 Overview.2: A fragmented community ... 19
3.4 Getting started with dynamic epistemic objects – developing guiding problem statements and research questions ... 20
3.5 Experimentation with safe-to-fail social change experiments ... 22
3.5.1 The iShack energy project ... 22
3.5.2 The Bokashi solid-waste project ... 25
3.5.3 The Gravity-fed sanitation project ... 27
3.5.4 The Enkanini research centre (ERC) ... 28
3.6 Dealing with emerging stakeholder formations ... 29
3.7 Securing multiple financial flows ... 32
3.8 Enkanini ETTDR approach: outcomes and outputs ... 33
3.8.1 Social change outcomes ... 33
3.8.2 Methodological outputs ... 38
3.9 Enkanini: An ETTDR case study: summary ... 44
CHAPTER 4: Multi-Ontology Methodological Decision-Making Framework ... 46
4.1 Introduction ... 46
4.2 Mono-disciplinarity in/for the obvious / simple domain ... 49
4.3 Multi- and Inter-disciplinarity in/for the complicated domain ... 52
vii
4.4.1 Epistemological strategy #1: Embracing unknown unknowns as enabling
knowledge-producing boundaries ... 64
4.4.2 Epistemological strategy #2: Acknowledging plausibility as the objective of co-producing transformative knowledge in the complex domain ... 66
4.4.3 Epistemological strategy #3: Accepting non-linear intentionality – expecting the unexpected ... 67
4.4.4 Epistemological strategy #4: Experimentation with multiple safe-to-fail social change experiments through side-casting (adjacent possibles) ... 69
4.5 Chaotic domain: no research – only action ... 75
4.6 Multi-ontology decision-making framework: summary ... 77
CHAPTER 5: Multi-Track ETTDR Processes ... 84
5.1. Introduction ... 84
5.2 Formal, Informal and Intermediary multi-track processes ... 86
5.2.1 Track 1: Formal legitimized stakeholder processes ... 87
5.2.2 Track 2: Informal social actor processes ... 88
5.2.3 Track 3: Intermediary processes ... 92
5.3 Multi-track ETTDR processes: summary ... 95
5.4 ETTDR processes for faculty ... 97
CHAPTER 6: Guiding Logics, Principles and Senses / Sensibilities ... 99
6.1 Introduction ... 99
6.2 Guiding logics & principles ... 102
6.2.1 The Logic of abductive reasoning ... 102
6.2.2 Perturbing the system ... 105
6.2.3 Allowing for emergence ... 106
6.2.4 Absorbing complexity ... 108
6.2.5 Multi-loop transformative learning ... 110
6.2.6 Innovation through exaptation ... 114
6.2.7 Guiding logics & principles: summary ... 116
6.3 The six senses / sensibilities of ETTDR ... 120
6.3.1 Working collaboratively ... 122
6.3.2 Working integratively ... 124
6.3.3 Working adaptively ... 125
6.3.4 Working interpretively ... 127
6.3.5 Working performatively ... 129
viii
6.4 The interconnectedness of the guiding logics, principles and senses / sensibilities:
summary ... 134
6.5 A heuristic for working with the guiding logics, principles & senses / sensibilities ... 139
CHAPTER 7: Future Research Areas ... 143
7.1 Introduction ... 143
7.2 Meta-theoretical sspects & considerations ... 144
7.3 Theory of change (ToC) ... 152
7.4: Guiding logics, principles & senses / sensibilities ... 153
7.5 Methods for doing ETTDR ... 155
7.6 Toward narrative-based ETTDR processes ... 158
7.7 Future research areas: summary... 185
CHAPTER 8: Conclusion ... 188
8.1 Introduction: The limits to transdisciplinary research & experimentation ... 188
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 198
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Triadic Relationality of ETTDR ... 1
Figure 2: The iShack Project ... 25
Figure 3: The Bokahshi Solid-Waste Treatment Project ... 27
Figure 4: The Gravity-fed Sanitation Project ... 28
Figure 5: The Enkanini Research Centre (ERC) ... 29
Figure 6: The Cynefin Multi-ontology Decision-making Framework ... 48
Figure 7: Domain-Relevant Methodologies ... 48
Figure 8: Mono-Disciplinarity in/for the Obvious/Simple Domain ... 51
Figure 9: Mono-Disciplinarity ... 52
Figure 10: Multi- & Inter-disciplinarity in/for the Complicated Domain ... 55
Figure 11: Multi-Disciplinarity ... 56
Figure 12: Inter-Disciplinarity ... 57
Figure 13: Trans-Disciplinarity in/for the Complex Domain ... 59
Figure 14: Trans-Disciplinarity ... 59
Figure 15: Non-linear / circular causality ... 61
Figure 16: Radical Openness ... 63
Figure 17: Adjacent Possibles ... 74
Figure 18: The Chaotic Domain ... 76
Figure 19: Methodological Agility ... 80
Figure 20: Rational-teleological backward planning & forward operating ... 87
Figure 21: Vortex-like process ... 89
Figure 22: Track 3-type process ... 94
Figure 23: Multi-loop Learning ... 111
Figure 24: Innovation through Exaptation ... 115
Figure 25: Ideal-typical Triadic Relationships: Ontology, Epistemology & Ethics ... 147
Figure 26: Focus shifting towards Ontology ... 147
Figure 27: Focus shifting towards Epistemology ... 148
Figure 28: Focus shifting towards Ethics ... 148
Figure 29: The SenseMaker® Methodology & Process ... 157
Figure 30: Ideal-Typical Jahn-Model ... 160
Figure 31: Integrated Four-Phase Model ... 160
Figure 32: Triads ... 161
Figure 33: Dyads ... 162
Figure 34: Stones ... 162
Figure 35: Multiple Choice Questions ... 163
Figure 36: Engaging with people in their every-day situations ... 166
Figure 37: Pattern Detection: Triads ... 170
Figure 38: Pattern Detection:Triads ... 170
Figure 39: Narrative Landscapes ... 171
Figure 40: Pattern Detection: Contour Maps ... 171
Figure 41: Pattern Detection: Bar-Graphs ... 172
Figure 42: Human Sensemaking ... 178
Figure 43: Actionable Insights ... 179
Figure 44: Ideal-Typical Facilitation Process ... 180
Figure 45: The iShack Energy Project ... 182
Figure 46: The Bokashi Solid-Waste Project ... 182
Figure 47: The Gravity-Fed Sanitation Project ... 182
Figure 48: Methodological Agility ... 190
x
Figure 50: Step 1: Individual / Small-Group Work ... 192
Figure 51: Step 2: Co-constructing Context-relevant Decision-making Frameworks... 193
Figure 52: Step 2: Completion ... 193
Figure 53: Step 3: Theoretical Inputs ... 194
Figure 54: Step 4: Making Changes ... 194
Figure 55: Step 5: Presenting Own Decision-making Frameworks ... 195
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: A heuristic for using guiding logics, principles & senses in ETTDR ... 140xi
ACRONYMS
CST
Centre for Complex Systems in Transitions
ETTDR
Emergent Transformative Transdisciplinary Research
ERC
Ekanini Research Centre
ID
Interdisciplinarity / Interdisciplinary
MOD
Monodisciplinarity / Monodisciplinary
MD
Multidisciplinarity / Multidisciplinary
SPL
School of Public Leadership
SES
Social Ecological Systems
SU
Stellenbosch University
SI
Sustainability Institute
SD
Sustainable Development
ToC
Theory of Change
TD
Transdisciplinarity / Transdisciplinary
TDCS
Transdisciplinary Case Study
TDCSR
Transdisciplinary Case Study Research
xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation is dedicated to all my colleagues at Stellenbosch University (SU) and abroad for all their financial, moral and spiritual support to help me live my dream over the last ten years at SU. To all our courageous Master’s and PhD students for taking the risk to experiment with the emerging transformative transdisciplinary research (ETTDR) approach in your individual research projects, I also wish to dedicate this dissertation to you. Words alone cannot capture my deepest gratitude for all your individual and collective efforts and contributions over the years; for, in the words of the Spanish poet Machado, helping to make the road by walking it together. Also, deep appreciation goes out to you all for our numerous and lively intellectual exchanges, reflections, decisions as well as your active participation in our various postgraduate TD academic programmes. Together, we have managed to introduce TD at SU in a nuanced, bottom-up manner, hopefully laying the foundation for establishing TDR in the years to come as a valid research methodology for tackling the complex societal challenges we are facing today. Hopefully our experiences and insights gained over the years, and made explicit in this dissertation, will inspire others to do something similar, yet differently, in their own contexts and academic institutions of higher learning around the world.
In alphabetical order, I wish to pay a special tribute to the following people:
Eve Annecke (Lynedoch); Amollo (Lorraine) Ambole (Kenya); Michelle Auduoin (CSIR); Alan Brent (SU); Russel Botman† (SU); Anni Beukes (SDI); Oonsie Biggs (SU / CST); Mike Burns (CSIR); Chris Brink (SU/UN); Bagele Chilisa (UB); Eugene Cloete (SU); Paul Cilliers†† (SU); Willem de Clerq (SU); Stef Deprez (Belgium); Karen Esler (SU); Zhen Goh (Cognitive Edge); Johan Hattingh (SU); Jannie Hofmeyr (SU); Andrew Kaniniki (NRF); Andreas Keller (SU); Frank Kessel (AU); Daniel Lang (LU, Germany); Sydney Mavengahama (ARC); Manfred Max-Neef (Univ. of Valdivia, Chile); Andreas Muhar (BOKU, Vienna); Hans Muller††† (SU); Josephine Musango (SU); Basarab Nicolescu (CIRET, France); Christian Pohl (ETH, Zurich); Christoff Pauw (SU); Camaren Peter (CSIR); Rika Preiser (SU); Roland Scholz (ETH); David Snowden (Cynefin Centre, Bangor University, Wales); Hanlie Strydom (SU); Michael Stauffacher (ETH, Zurich); Mark Swilling (SU / CST); Lauren Tavener-Smith (SU); Yondela Tyawa (ERC); Carine Tymbios (SU); Vanessa von der Heyde (SU); Wikus van Niekerk (SU); Albert van Jaarsveld (NRF); Ulli Vilsmaier (LU, Germany); Jan Visser (Learndev, The Netherlands); Alex Weaver (CSIR); Berry Wessels (SU);Gideon Wolfaardt (SU); Matt Zylstra (SU).
† Russel Botman passed away in 2014 †† Paul Cilliers passed away in 2011 ††† Hans Muller passed away in 2014
xiii
“The road is
made by
1
CHAPTER 1: OBJECTIVES AND MODUS OPERANDI OF THE STUDY
The main focus of this study is methodological with the view of contributing to developing transdisciplinarity (TD) as a research methodology that is fundamentally and simultaneously collaborative, transformative and agile. In other words, a systematic attempt will be made in this study to integrate these three aspects into an emergent, transformative transdisciplinary research (ETTDR) that approach that is capable of working in and on complex problem situations in fluid social environments by not only focusing on the understanding and explaining (Verstehen / Erklärung) of the complexity of the contextual problem situations at hand, but also figuring out how to changing it (Verändern).
Before proceeding with an explanation of the modus operandi of how this will be tackled, the following graphic / visualisation depicts the essence of this integration challenge at hand:
Figure 1: Triadic Relationality of ETTDR Source: By Author 2019
Figure 1 denotes the methodological agility of ETTDR in terms of a three-way set of inextricably interconnected relationships – in short, the triadic relationality of ETTDR. By this is simply meant a dynamic methodological approach allowing for emergence in a manner that is both collaborative (working between and across disciplinary and non-disciplinary boundaries), interpretive (making sense in / of the emergent situation / context – meaningmaking), and transformative (contributing to social change in / to the emergent problem situation at hand).
In Figure 1 the ETTDR approach has been located in an ideal-typical position – signified by the blue ball – conferring a completely equal value / weighting (e.g. 33,3%) on all three fundamental aspects making up the ETTDR approach. However, in practice this will very seldom, if ever, be case. On the contrary, in emerging real-world situations, on-going change
2
in circumstances and focus of what is needed is what should be expected, rather than some or other fixed / static centre position with all three – the collaborative, transformative and interpretive aspects – remaining fully intact in terms of their equal (33,3%) importance / weighting in relation to each other.
What is required is a more dynamic way of imagining the internal dynamics of the ETTDR approach. This is indeed the purpose of the above dynamic triadic structure – suggesting that a change in the direction of any one of the three fundamental aspects can certainly be imagined, without necessarily severing any of the crucial three-way connections linking all three aspects in a mutually constitutive way with each other. In other words, a shift in the need and emphasis towards one of the three aspects still means remaining connected to the other two aspects. For example, a move more in the direction of the interpretive aspect (e.g. 60%) could mean less of a focus on the transformative and collaborative aspects (e.g. 20% each) – but not necessarily at the cost of completely obliterating either of the latter two aspects equally responsible to constituting the ETTDR approach.
The blue ball in Figure 1 therefore does not symbolise some or other perfectly integrated end-goal to be achieved in / under (even irrespective of) all real-life changes in the context and issues at hand. Instead, the purpose of Figure 1 is to enable a dynamic understanding of how certain shifts in emphasis / priorities can and do occur in different directions, whilst, at the same time, retaining some measure of all the fundamental aspects of the matter(s) of concern under discussion. In other words, a triadic integrative logic suggests that it is more a matter of degree than kind, namely of acknowledging changes in the center of gravity (main focus), symbolised by the blue ball, and working with any uneven weight distributions that might emerge from this – rather than being forced into a position of having to make strong binary choices between seemingly mutually exclusive situations. This is particularly important when dealing with the consequences of real-world emergence – i.e. when facing ever-changing and evolving new (even unexpected) real-life situations and having to respond to the latter in a methodologically agile manner.
This is indeed the logic and approach that will be followed throughout this study1 in pursuit of developing, as systematically as possible, the notion of methodological agility consisting of the continuous interacting (mutually constituting) of the said – collaborative, transformative and interpretive – aspects of the ETTDR methodology. The latter is particularly attuned to the
1 See Section 7.2 below for an even more detailed explanation of how to go about working integratively with the
3
fact that context matters and for this reason that the Anthropocene2 is brought into the discussion on methodology right from the onset as a concrete example of the importance of context at all levels.
In this regard, it matters hugely, methodologically speaking, how something like the Anthropocene has been imagined and framed. Although the anthropogenic nature of the Anthropocene has been acknowledged as the most important aspect of the latter in the literature, the general trend (especially amongst earth scientists) has been to frame the Anthropocene as something akin to a ‘polycrisis’ (Morin and Kern, 1999). By this is simply meant focusing almost exclusively on the ‘exteriority’ of the Anthropocene – i.e. conceiving of the latter as a new human-induced geological epoch comprising of multiple, irreducible, interconnected problems existing independently from our ‘interior’ phenomenological world of (human) experiences, perceptions and observations.
What is missing from this perspective of the polycrisis becomes abundantly clear when the Anthropocene is viewed through another lens, i.e. the lens of a ‘meta-crisis’ (Bhaskar et al., 2015). Bhaskar and his colleagues have come up with this concept certainly not to deny the ‘objective’ nature of the Anthropocene, but rather, and very importantly, to stress the social character of the latter in the sense that said interconnected crises are also situated within an inter-subjective context of ‘interior’ meaning-making (Bhaskar et al., 2015). In other words, the Anthropocene is not just a so-called earth-systems problem only of interest to natural or earth scientists, but also comprises philosophical, existential, religious, worldview, psycho-spiritual dimensions that are essential to include in an adequate understanding of the complex dynamics in play in order to facilitate more effective responses.
As mentioned, the methodological implications of approaching the Anthropocene not only as a so-called polycrisis, but also as a meta-crisis are indeed far-reaching. By bringing the interior world of human sense-making into the discussion, indeed matters hugely for the way in which we respond to the Anthropocene methodologically. Although the latter has already been written about in the TDR literature (Seidl et al., 2013), to my knowledge, no successful attempts have as yet been made to systematically integrate the above mentioned three fundamental aspects into a coherent ETTDR methodology capable of tackling the Anthropocene as both a poly- and meta-crisis. To be sure, in the literature on TDR, a lot of emphasis has been placed on the collaborative, and even transformative, aspects. However, in so doing, not sufficient attention has been given to the challenge of figuring out how deal
2 See Annexure A (included in this document) for a selection of some key definitions and understandings of
4
more systematically with the interior world of human meaning-making in the context of the Anthropocene, and bringing this into TDR approaches and processes.
A fundamental question in this study is therefore how we respond to Anthropocene as both a poly- and meta-crisis in a methodologically agile manner if by methodology we mean, in broad terms, not only the study of methods, but also the logics and principles underlying and guiding our scientific inquiry – in a manner which allows for our methodological reflections and decision-making to cross into the philosophical provinces of logic, epistemology, and ontology (Baugh Jr and Baugh, 1990; Blumer, 1986).
It must be said from the outset that the intention with developing the ETTDR approach is not to establish a so-called new general ‘Science’ per se which can be pursued as some sort of a panacea for ALL problem situations encountered in the Anthropocene. On the contrary, as mentioned, the intention is to develop ETTDR as an agile, new methodology for doing science with society in a context-relevant manner. This will be explained in more detail in Chapter 4 below, but suffice it to mention here that it is critically important not to approach the Anthropocene as some or other homogeneous reality producing and presenting us only with complex problem situations. On the contrary, we may also encounter other and very different kinds of problem situations that are not necessarily complex, but rather straightforward, complicated or chaotic – which indeed may not require transdisciplinary responses, but rather any one, or combination of, mono-, multi- and inter-disciplinary methodological approaches This is in essence what is meant by methodological agility, namely making sense of the contexts within which different kinds of problem situations are embedded and encountered and, then, in the light this sensemaking, understanding when to switch between the different methodologies and, then, more specifically in light of this, understanding how to pursue an ETTDR approach when facing complex problem situations – and in so doing, avoiding the risk of using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut. In other words, in the interest of being / becoming methodologically agile, we need to be careful of not falling into the trap of using the internal logics, principles and methods of the different methodologies interchangeably. The latter are not just part of some or other methodological toolbox that can merely be accessed and utilized at will – irrespective of the differences in the design, purposes and functions etc. of the methodologies
To this end, in developing ETTDR as an appropriate research approach for dealing with complex problem situations in a methodologically agile manner, the following modus operandi will be followed in this study:
5
Chapter 2 will discuss the rationale of the study by asking three separate, but linked questions: What is ETTDR? Why ETTDR? And, ETTDR for what? This discussion will connect the notion of doing transformative research with society with the notion of methodological agility – in so doing, laying the groundwork for developing these ideas further and deeper in the ensuing chapters of this study.
Chapter 3 will focus on the challenges of initiating an intentional Transdisciplinary Case Study (TDCS) – known as the Enkanini case study – having to deal with real-world contexts of emergence / complexity and concomitantly high levels of uncertainty and unpredictability. From this invaluable experience has emerged an approach that will be referred to as ETTDR design and strategy-making – which basically means that the research process can be co-designed and co-constructed as the research process unfolds together with the social actors participating in the process. This will lay the groundwork for what is to follow in the ensuing two chapters on multi-track ETTDR processes and the guiding logics, principles and senses necessary for steering the research process in a transformative direction.
Chapter 4 will introduce the first of two or three heuristics in the form of an adapted version of the Cynefin multi-ontology decision-making framework – positing four different kinds of contexts: also known as the obvious / simple, complicated, complex and chaotic domains. The differences between these four domains are fundamental ontological differences in terms of their internal causal dynamics: events in the obvious / simple domain are caused by single linear cause–effect relationships, in the complicated domain by multiple linear cause–effect relationships, by non-linear cause– effect relationships in the complex domain and in the chaotic domain there are no cause–effect relationships, meaning that things just happen randomly and with no detectable patterns at all. The main purpose of introducing this multi-ontological decision-making framework is threefold: (a) to ensure that we do not approach the Anthropocene as some or other monolithic reality with complex problem situations only, (b) to situate mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity as four equally valid research methodologies in each of the four domains – with the ETTDR approach placed specifically in the complex domain, and (c) to enable methodological agility – i.e. to facilitate our decision-making when having to decide on when to switch methodologies between and within the four fundamental domains – without turning this into paradigm switching exercises in the Kuhnian sense of the word (Kuhn, 2012) – which is simply too onerous for participating in collaborative science-with-society processes.
6
Chapter 5 posits the notion of multi-track ETTDR processes in response to the dominant view expressed in the TD literature of the global North, namely that ETTDR processes are normally conducted with so-called formal ‘legitimized’ stakeholders – in other words, with people who have been mandated to speak for and make decisions on behalf of other people. Although this has become an accepted practice in highly developed and democratically organised / structured countries, such as Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands, this is certainly not a practice which can be uncritically adopted and applied to developing world countries. Here the challenge is to deal with informality, i.e. engaging with individual people in their informal social networks and institutions with no mandate to speak or make decisions on behalf of other people, but only for themselves. This was indeed the challenge the research team faced from the very onset of initiating the TDCS in the informal settlement of Enkanini in 2011 (described in more detail in Chapter 3). Drawing on the literature on second / multi-track diplomacy in conflict resolution and peace-building (Davies and Kaufman, 2003; Diamond and McDonald, 1996) was indeed very helpful, at both the theoretical and practical levels, to conduct the Enkanini case as a Track-2 type process working directly with the individual shack-dwellers in the absence of any leadership figures claiming to speak on behalf of the Enkanini residents. Therefore, since it cannot be assumed that all or most countries are as highly organised and structured as the democratic countries in the Global North today, this idea and the practice of following multi-track ETTDR processes, rather than just one type of process across ALL different contexts / situations, are indeed a very important for how to go about conducting collaborative science-with-society processes in different parts of the world today.
Chapter 6 demonstrates that the methodological implications of working in complex, emergent social environments and adopting an emergent research design may very well result in an ‘anything goes’ approach in the sense that there are no guiding logics, principles and methods for such emergent research processes (Feyerabend, 1993). In Chapter 5 any such assumptions or suggestions will be dispelled with by demonstrating that a key output of the ETTDR design & strategy-making approach, pursued and discussed in Chapter 3, was the developing / formulating of some logics and principles, necessary for guiding / nudging our decision-making in the Enkanini case. This was, very importantly, done in an organic, bottom-up way, which means that, on the one hand, it is not a fundamental prerequisite to have a clear set of guiding logics and principles at hand when initiating ETTDR processes and, on the other hand, that the specific guiding logic and principles that are produced by an ETTDR approach do not necessarily have to make any claims to be universally applicable and transferrable in
7
order to demonstrate their usefulness in terms of guiding decision-making in ETTDR processes. On the contrary, it will be argued in this chapter, that the challenge is for different ETTDR approaches to come up with their own context-relevant guiding logics and principles, which can then form the basis for developing a more generally applicable set of guiding logics and principles.
More importantly, though, is to understand the phenomenological origins of any guiding set of logics and principles. In this regard, it will be pointed out that human experiences, perceptions, observations – in short, our senses – have a key role to play in the developing of any guiding logics and principles. In other words, contrary to the research strategies developed by the positivist, empiricist and rationalist trends in the history and philosophy of science to exclude our embodied experiences and senses from the research process, the goal in ETTDR processes is rather to accept and work with these as part and parcel of what constitutes the complexity of problem situations in the complex domain. To this end, a heuristic will be introduced in Section 6.5 of this chapter to facilitate the process of bringing together some of our research senses and logics and principles.
Chapter 7 focuses on the important aspects of ETTDR that have not been covered systematically in this study, but which will form the research agenda of future research. In other words, given the specific methodological focus of this study of contributing to the developing of ETTDR methodology, there are certainly some areas that fall outside the scope of this study, but which are certainly considered critically important, both in terms of affecting and being affected by matters methodological. In this penultimate chapter of the study the focus will fall specifically on the following areas that have only been referred to broadly, in passing, throughout the study, but which are nevertheless considered important enough to be pursued further for undertaking ETTDR in future:
o Meta-theoretical – i.e. investigating the implications of adopting an ‘anticipatory ethics’ approach with the aim to integrate ontological, epistemological and ethical considerations vs. treating them as three so-called separate domains of inquiry. onto-ethico-epistemology position (already developed at the quantum level (Barad, 2012, 2010, 2007)) for tackling complex societal problem situations in the Anthropocene, which no longer treats ontological, epistemological and ethical questions as belonging to three fundamentally separate bodies of knowledge; o Theory of change (ToC) – i.e. investigating the pros and cons of developing and
adopting ‘radical incrementalism’ as a possible theory and praxis of change for guiding ETTDR processes in a transformative direction, without facing the near
8
impossible challenge of having to bring about some deep structural change in research processes in general and ETTDR processes in particular;
o Narrative-based methods – i.e. proceeding with and further developing the work that has already commenced with regard to using narrative-based research methods not only for providing better and deeper understanding (Verstehen) of the role of human experiences, perceptions and observations at the phenomenological level of complex problem situations at hand, but also for indicating how to use these experiences, perceptions and observations the latter strategically in order to contribute some about small-scale / incremental social change (Verändern) to these situations (in terms of a radical incrementalism theory of change).
Chapter 8 will conclude this study by reaffirming the importance of avoiding the pitfalls of un/intentionally initiating collaborative science-with-society processes on the assumption that ETTDR is a panacea for ALL different kinds of problem situations facing us in the Anthropocene today. Instead, it is much better to adopt an approach of methodological agility, namely switching between the equally valid domain-relevant methodologies of mono-, multi- and inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinarity – depending on the specific context of the specific problem situations encountered in the obvious / simple, complicated and complex domains respectively.
9
CHAPTER 2: RATIONALE FOR ETTDR – WHY, WHAT AND FOR
WHAT?
2.1 Introduction
As mentioned in Chapter 1 above, the overall objective of the study is to contribute to developing the ETTDR approach for using in a methodologically agile manner – i.e., in short, a research methodology that is capable not only of providing an understanding / explanation (Verstehen / Erklärung) of the complex challenges being faced in the Anthropocene today, but also of venturing into finding ways and means of changing (Verändern) these complex challenges. A good starting point for launching this investigation is to start with the three basic questions of: What is ETTDR? Why is it necessary? And, more precisely, for what is it considered an appropriate approach? The main focus of Chapter 2 is to start with these questions as providing some pointers or perspectives which can be further developed in the study, rather than trying to come up with some or other definitive responses to them. In this regard, although the three questions will be addressed sequentially – why, for what, what is ETTDR? – it is important not see them as three completely separate and unrelated questions, but rather as intricately interconnected questions intended to throw some more light on the central focus of this study, namely the developing of the ETTDR methodology capable of tackling complex problem situations in the context of the Anthropocene today.
For Blumer, the methodology of science, in its most general expression, is the self-reflection of the scientific enterprise, that is, the study of the principles which underlie scientific inquiry (1969b: 24). This definition implies that, as with every self-reflective endeavor, methodology has an indefinite boundary. Its further reaches pass into the philosophical provinces of logic, epistemology, and ontology, blending fully into the array of their discourses. For this reason, Blumer's statement defining methodology begins with a discussion of idealism and realism (Blumer, 1969b: 21-2; Baugh Jr and Baugh, 1990). However, it will be argued below that, when facing the (ethics) question of how to act in the context of the Anthropocene today, discussions on methodology go beyond these mere philosophical domains of logic, epistemology and ontology.
2.2 What is ETTDR?
As already mentioned: TD, in general, is not purporting to be a ‘new’ science per se, but rather is a new approach for doing transformative research with society in a methodologically agile manner. However, this assertion begs the question: what do we mean by ‘methodology’? What does it mean that TD is a ‘methodology’ for doing science with society? In short, the answer is that the notion of methodology should not be reduced to the study of methods only. On
10
contrary, methodology means much more than working with certain methods only, since it also, very importantly consists of the guiding logics and principles necessary for steering our decision-making and actions when designing and conducting research. Reducing methodology to the study of methods only falls into the trap of an instrumentalist understanding of methodology – resulting in the proverbial ‘tool box’ approach. One way of avoiding this trap is to go back to the original etymological meaning of methodology, originating from and comprised of the three Greek words: ‘meta’ (μετά) signifying what is ‘beyond’ or ‘above’, ‘hodos’ (ὁδός) denoting a journey from point A to point B, and ‘logos’ (λόγος) referring to the logic or reasoning employed for figuring out how to get from point A to point B. When putting these different aspects and meanings of the word methodology together for undertaking research, it means that methodology, broadly speaking, refers to the reasoning, logic or principles for guiding our decision-making during the research process.
The word method, on the other hand, shares the same Greek etymology, but consists of only two components: ‘meta’ and ‘hodos’ – thereby omitting the important notion of ‘logos’.3 This means that ‘method’ has a more restrictive performative meaning, because it is about the activities or actions of doing or performing certain techniques, steps or procedures when using certain tools and instruments for navigating the research process (the journey). However, methods on their own cannot tell us how and for what they are or should be used – especially when facing the challenge many different and differing pathways of changing (Erklärung) complex problem situations. The methodological requirements in this regard for conducting ETTDR processes are some context-relevant guiding logics and principles, capable of guiding our decision-making and actions during the research process. What these guiding logics and principles might be for ETTDR processes will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6 , but it is sufficient for our purposes here to reaffirm the importance of not conflating methodology and methods, for falling into this trap will close all opportunities for dealing with and developing a more in-depth understanding of the guiding role and function of ETTDR processes in social change processes, and the need for some guiding logics and principles in this regard. This does not mean, however, that methods are unimportant and therefore not part of the discussion on methodology; on the contrary, methods are part and parcel of the methodology, but they become operative only once we have developed a better understanding of the guiding logics and principles, responsible for the overall steering / nudging of ETTDR processes, including the question of what methods are appropriate and how they should be used.
However, taking this route of explaining ETTDR in terms of a more general meaning and definition of the notion of methodology should not be seen as an attempt to develop ETTDR
11
as some sort of a panacea: i.e. a universal methodology applicable to ALL problem situations in the world today, and one that can merely be applied and transferred in an instrumentalist ‘cut-and-paste’ manner from one context to another as if the differences between them do not matter at all. On the contrary, context matters hugely in this regard, simply because the differences in context are differences in kind, not in degree.4 So, for example, the differences between complex, complicated and chaotic contexts are qualitatively different from each other and not just different types of the same phenomenon, as it were. It must be said that, even at the time of the Anthropocene, not all situations / contexts encountered are equally complex – some are certainly more complicated or chaotic than others. The fundamental differences between the different kinds of context will be discussed in more detailed in Sections 2.5.2 – 2.5.5. However, before doing so, it is important to mention here that acknowledging this reality of facing fundamentally different kinds of contexts certainly has some major methodological implications at both the strategic and operational levels for the way in which the science– society relationship is being conducted in the Anthropocene.
The ETTDR approach needs to be developed here in a manner that satisfies the principle of
methodological agility: i.e. ability to switch between the four different kinds of methodologies
– of mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity – when facing different kinds of contextual challenges – without falling into the trap of committing some category errors (Ryle, 2015) along the way by ensuring that the different kinds of contexts are approached in terms of context-relevant methodological concepts, logics, principles, practices and methods, and not in terms of the concepts, logics, principles, practices, methods etc. that are relevant in / for another context. This concept of being methodologically agile5 will be further developed in Chapter 4 below – however, suffice to mention here is the fact that this should not be confused with the much stronger Kuhnian notion of ‘paradigm switching’ (Kuhn, 2012) – a much more onerous, if not impossible, methodological challenge to fulfil, since a paradigm switch is akin to a so-called ‘Gestalt’ switch6 – i.e. a radical change between different modes of science during which the ‘new’ scientific paradigm discards with the old / outdated paradigms to the extent that the latter become completely defunct and relegated to the proverbial dust heap.
4 In other words, in evolutionary biological terms one would say that differences in kind are akin to different
species, while differences in degree are like different variations or mutations of the same species.
5 In Chapter 4, a distinction will be made between two types of methodological agility and discussed: (a)
inter-methodological agility referring to the need for inter-changing methodologies between four ontologically
different domains or contexts and (b) intra-methodological agility referring to the need for adopting / using different research strategies, processes, practices, methods etc. within a particular domain – with specific reference to the complex domain. The challenge of the transferability of knowledge will also be discussed in more detail in terms of this distinction between inter- and intra-methodological agility in section 4.6 below.
6 At least, this was the view of the early Kuhn (in the first edition of Structure of Scientific Revolutions) when he
12
By way of example, though, a fundamental paradigm switch may be required if the central arguments developed by Funtowicz and Ravetz on post-normal science were to be accepted (Funtowicz, 1993; Funtowicz, 1994; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1995; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 2012). Acknowledging the fact that we are living in a complex world with complex problems, these two authors suggest that ‘post-normal’ science is not only the fundamentally ‘new way’ of doing science today, but also that ‘the old’ – or ‘normal’ – way of doing science has in fact become outdated and should therefore be replaced by post-normal science – along the lines of performing a radical Kuhnian-like paradigm switch.7 However, for our purposes, there is no need to go along with this kind of approach, simply because, as stated, not ALL problem situations in the Anthropocene are equally complex as the two authors make it out to be. On the contrary, the need for developing the ETTDR approach in a context-relevant way is aimed at contextualizing / situating this approach vis-à-vis the other equally valid context-relevant approaches in a dynamic manner – with the express view of allowing for flexible interchanging between them, whilst at the same time being mindful of the methodological differences in the concepts, logics, principles, practices, methods etc. being used when dealing with the different contextual challenges. It is therefore important not to explain these methodological differences between the mono-, multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary approaches merely in the abstract, but rather in terms their situatedness in the different kinds of contexts each of these different methodological approaches addresses – which will now be discussed in more detail below.
2.3
Why ETTDR?
ETTDR is needed when dealing with complex societal challenges, characterised by their non-linear cause–effect relationships. This will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.4 below, but suffice it to mention here that what distinguishes linear from non-linear causality is that in linear causality A always causes B and C causes D in uni-directional way, rendering it impossible for B to loop back onto A, thereby producing a return or two-way causal effects, as it were. In non-linear causality, on the other hand, feedback loops between A and B and C and
7 Although, it must be said that they have not explicitly adopted these Kuhnian concepts and language to develop
their ideas on post-normal science. This is an inference drawn, on my side, in order to highlight the implications of going along with and adopting the notion of a post-normal science as proposed by Funtowicz and Ravetz. However, many of their ideas on complexity and post-normal science are applicable in / for the Complex Domain, but not beyond. Hence, presenting post-normal science as some or other panacea is simply too restrictive for conducting the broader science-with-society relationship – particularly when confronting non-complex (especially simple and complicated) problems in the Anthropocene today – still warranting normal science approaches (i.e. different variations / permutations of mono- and multi- and interdisciplinarity).
13
D are a fundamental feature of these two-way causal relationships, making it possible for A to cause B and B to cause A at the same time (Jackson, 1991).
However, what this non-linearity means for the purposes of understanding and approaching the anthropogenic challenges in the Anthropocene today is that the latter are not just as a ‘polycrisis’ (Morin and Kern, 1999), consisting of multiple interconnected ‘objective’ crises, existing independently from us, as it were. On the contrary, when these challenges are imagined as a ‘meta-crisis’ (Bhaskar et al., 2015), situated within an inter-subjective or social context of meaning-making. Making this move allows us to better understand the complex dynamics involved in the Anthropocene; this is because the process of meaning- or sense-making of our different and differing experiences and perceptions are part and parcel of the feedback loops between the anthropogenic causes and effects of the Anthropocene, starting at the phenomenological level and then iteratively recurring at the ontological, epistemological and social (change) levels. Since the non-linearity in all of this involves the disproportionality between the causes and effects experienced and observed in the Anthropocene, we need to assume that this will manifest itself not only in terms of many different ways of framing the Anthropocene8 – not only in disciplinary terms, but also in terms of the many different perspectives involved in the real-life experiences of ordinary people. To be sure, there are no short-cuts in dealing with this challenge of bringing together and making sense of the multiple disciplinary and non-disciplinary perspectives. This is simply a challenge which cannot be dealt with in terms of the singular / reductionist disciplinary approaches in an attempt to avoid the potential threat of relativism9 in all of this. However, to be sure, these multiple perspectives add to the complexity of the problem situations facing us in the Anthropocene, thereby warranting TD approaches that can work within the Anthropocene in an integrative way. This will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.4 below; suffice it to mention here that this (integrative way) does not imply trying to dissolve or discard differences, but rather using differences creatively to come up with new / innovative ways of understanding the complex problems situations facing us in the Anthropocene today.
2.4 ETTDR FOR WHAT?
However, this challenge of dealing with the complexity of problem situations in the Anthropocene does not only refer to the understanding and explaining (Verstehen / Erklärung) of the latter, but also for exploring and figuring out different ways and means of changing
8 As we have already seen and commented on in the introduction to the thesis.
9 This potential threat of relativism stems from the position known as ‘perspectivism’, which implies that each
individual perspective is completely unique, with no possibility of any inter-connections and overlapping between them, capable of producing emerging patterns from all the singular perspectives.
14
(Verändern) these complex problem situations. To be sure, this need for social change in the Anthropocene increases the complexity of what we are being confronted with today, since the challenge is no longer restricted to merely understanding and explaining complex problem situations. In other words, the complexity of the challenges facing us in the Anthropocene today provide, simultaneously, two angles for the rationale of ETTDR: why and for what is it needed? Not only are things too complex for the single disciplines to understand and explain the complexity of the challenges we are facing in the Anthropocene today, but also figuring out different ways and means of how to bring about some social change in the Anthropocene today cannot be undertaken in isolation from society – i.e. without including the relevant societal stakeholders / social actors who are actually involved in bringing about the required social change.
However, when positing the need for social change as an explicit and fundamental goal of ETTDR, it is quite easy to fall into the trap of conflating social change processes with ETTDR processes and, consequently, treating them as one and the same thing. It is therefore important, from the outset, to distinguish10 between social change and transdisciplinary research processes (Scholz et al., 2006a; Scholz, 2011). This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 below, but suffice it to mention here that this distinction is made at both the conceptual / theoretical and practical levels in order to better understand and manage / guide / nudge / steer collaborative ETTDR processes in a transformative direction. Such ETTDR processes may or may not necessarily intersect with any existing and/or future real-world societal change processes and where such intersections do happen, ETTDR processes refer to transdisciplinary research processes initiated and conducted with an explicit interest in contributing to the social change processes through knowledge co-production processes. This will be the topic of more in-depth discussion in Chapter 5 below, but suffice it to mention here that in practice such intersections between societal social change processes and ETTDR processes can and do happen in many different ways, always bringing the perspectives of multiple social actors into the research process and thereby adding more layers of complexity to the challenge of bringing together and integrating different and differing experiences and perceptions of a particular situation at hand.
Therefore, in the interests of better understanding the role of academia in doing transformative research with society in a methodologically agile manner in the Anthropocene today, it remains important not to conflate ETTDR and social change processes, and it is with this in mind that the focus of in this study will shift more explicitly in Chapter 6 to the task of developing some
10 This conceptual distinction is made here whilst acknowledging, at the same time, that in practice (e.g. in
real-life TDCSR projects) these two processes – i.e. social change and ETTDR processes – will always intersect and overlap in many different ways and tend to blur such conceptual distinctions.
15
guiding logics and principles necessary for steering / nudging (Snowden, 2015a; Sunstein and Thaler, 2012) our decision-making practices in ETTDR processes in the direction of bringing about some social change. In this, we cannot merely assume that interacting with societal stakeholders or social actors in collaborative ETTDR processes will, in and of itself, guarantee that the research process will move in a transformative direction. For this to happen, it remains crucial that a coherent and enabling set of logics, principles, practices and methods are explicitly developed for steering / nudging our recurrent (Knorr Cetina, 2001) decision-making practices as processes in our various ETTDR endeavours. In the absence of this, TDR processes may very well veer off in different directions – guided by some well-established positivist and interpretivist ideas and practices – ending up in a position of merely being satisfied with understanding and explaining (Verstehen / Erklärung) the complex problem situations we are facing in the Anthropocene today, and not changing them.
16
CHAPTER 3: ENKANINI – A CASE STUDY IN ETTDR
11
3.1 Introduction
The notion of methodological agility was introduced in Chapter 2 as part of a broad ETTDR strategy is that it is aimed at participating in dynamic science-with-society research processes in the context of the Anthropocene. However, for our purposes of further developing the ETTDR approach, it is important to make the following conceptual distinction between two different types of methodological agility: (a) inter-methodological agility for switching between the different domain-relevant methodologies of mono-, multi-, inter- and transdisciplinarity (for more on this, see Chapter 4), and (b) intra-methodological agility for making methodological changes within any one of these particular domains.
In this chapter the focus will fall more specifically on introducing the notion of emergent research design as an example of intra-methodological agility. In practice, this meant adopting a context-relevant approach of research design and strategy-making during real-life, unfolding ETTDR processes embedded in fluid informal social contextual settings of an informal settlement – known as “Enkanini” in the town of Stellenbosch, South Africa. A key feature of initiating this intentional transdisciplinary case study (TDCS) was the absence of any formal ‘legitimated’ leaders or decision-makers. This meant that the only realistic option for starting this TDCS was to engage with individual social actors in their informal social networks and relationships. In such a context of social fluidity, even using the word ‘the community’ is problematic, not only because there are no formal leadership figures mandated to speak on behalf of others, but also because there is no history or shared experiences, rituals, practices etc. of working together (Sennett, 2012) on any matters of mutual concern. Therefore, starting, or trying to start, ETTDR processes in such fluid social contexts with some or other pre-planned research design in place is certainly not a sensible approach. The latter normally requires some clear-cut (measurable) end-goals, objectives, epistemic objects, research methods etc. – indeed a fundamental pre-requisite in mono-, multi-, and inter-disciplinary research approaches. However, when confronted with the kind of social volatility, as experienced from the onset in the Enkanini informal settlement, a much more methodologically agile approach is required – in short, an emergent research design and strategy-making approach capable of allowing for and working with emergence, – or in the poetic words of Antonio Machado: “making the road by walking”.
